Rule of 16 - What's the Point?

[lexington]

Originally Posted by Stripe

Thanks. I recently purchased Psionic Powers and didn't even know there was a book called Psionic Campaigns.

What's it worth? Like, +10%?

O_o

It's one the most potentially unbalancing enhancements in the game. IIRC it was priced as normal Cosmic.

[Snaps]

It's always in the Defenders favor, right?

So Flesh to Stone 25 vs. HT 12 = 16 vs. 12 (Rule of 16)
Flesh to Stone 25 vs. HT 20 = 20 vs. 20 (equal to Defenders resistance)
Flesh to Stone 15 vs. HT 20 = 15 vs. 20 (No rule of 16 for defenders attribute)

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Snaps

It's always in the Defenders favor, right?

So Flesh to Stone 25 vs. HT 12 = 16 vs. 12 (Rule of 16)
Flesh to Stone 25 vs. HT 20 = 20 vs. 20 (equal to Defenders resistance)
Flesh to Stone 15 vs. HT 20 = 15 vs. 20 (No rule of 16 for defenders attribute)

Yeah there's no Rule of 16 for defense. The idea is to prevent "save or die" from turning into "or die", not to help the underdog.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by lexington

O_o

It's one the most potentially unbalancing enhancements in the game. IIRC it was priced as normal Cosmic.

Easy, killer. I meant to type +100%.

[adm]

Originally Posted by Hannes665

I use a rather simple house rule instead of Rule of X. I divide the 2 numbers either with 2 or any number that equally divides both numbers.

For example above:
Flesh to Stone 25 vs. HT 12: (divide with 2 round up) 13 vs. 6.
Flesh to Stone 25 vs. HT 17: 13 vs 9.

Sleeping: 24 vs. HT 15 8 vs. 5. Both divided with 3.
Sleeping: 24 vs. HT 14 12 vs. 7.

This does not LOWER critical success or failure for the spell user. So a spell user with x spell at level 24 and is rolling against 12 would get a critical success at 5 or 6. Same if he would roll a 17 and the active spell level would be 17+ regardless if he is rolling vs 12 17 would be a failure not critical failure. The Spell caster is not failing his spell rather the subject or target is resisting the spell.

Elegant, AND simple. I like.

[GodBeastX]

Why not just take magery out of the spell for resistance rolls? This seems like a lot of work simply because two stats are added together. Or divide them by two to balance them into 1 stat.

Edit: Actually, nevermind, I'm a dolt. I was playing with rule of 16 all last night, and I forgot about all the modifiers to your spells that make you end up rolling 16 anyway, like distance to target and such.

[kirbwarrior]

To note something about Rule of 16, if the target's resistance is 16, you will never have a higher than 50% chance of your spell working. That is a huge deal for PCs who like being alive. I like a bunch of house rules I've seen on the subject (auto resist on crit instead of Rule of 16 was really cool), but all of them heighten the chances of someone, especially with a somewhat high resist score, of failing.

Hmm, if you made spells (and such) into Regular Contests, you probably don't need Rule of 16, and that can make using some abilities really cool in combat (gotta continue focusing! I know I'm about to break through!).

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

That is a huge deal for PCs who like being alive.

Precisely and exactly, which is why it exists.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Sunrunners_Fire

Precisely and exactly, which is why it exists.

This does, of course, encourage 'rapid fire' tactics against resistant targets.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

This does, of course, encourage 'rapid fire' tactics against resistant targets.

I don't think there's any way to combine rapid fire with any effect that uses a quick contest in the first place, though you can use altered time rate or compartmentalized mind to make multiple tries per turn.